Rosa DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, again, let me just notify the gentleman who just spoke, there is truly nothing in our bill that deals with the issue of privatization or with States and privatization. I think the gentleman is confused with the Agriculture appropriations bill and with the farm bill which occurred a week ago. That was addressed in the farm bill. There is nothing in our bill that deals with the issue of privatization. I think it's again worth noting that all we are speaking about here is a report. What I can't understand is why we would not want to know about the cost of contracting out and what is happening. That is what our responsibility is, to ask questions. We have oversight responsibility of these Federal agencies. As I pointed out before, you have 21,000 Americans, 43,000 foreign contractors, 118,000 Iraqis all employed in Iraq by U.S. tax dollars, according to the most recent government data. You have got the massive privatization of military jobs which have been taken up with construction, security, weapons systems, maintenance, and, in fact, we can't even keep track of that effort. We have a responsibility, whether it is Department of Agriculture, whether it is Department of Defense, whatever Department it is. If we want to hold the jobs that we have, we ought to be asking questions about how taxpayers' dollars are being spent by these agencies. And it's fiscally responsible, and it is what we are charged with doing. You may choose not to know what they are doing because you concur that that's the thing to do, to replace Federal employees and their jobs. You can hold that view, but let's get the information. Let's get a mere report to do it. I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in opposition to the Sessions amendment, and I am astounded that the gentleman is taking the time of the House with this amendment. The only requirement in the language that the amendment seeks to strike is for the USDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide a report on contracting out policies and expenditures, to the appropriations and the Oversight and Government Reform committees. This is a bipartisan provision, included when the gentleman's party was in the majority and a long-standing provision that was first part of the Agriculture bill for fiscal year 2004. If the gentleman's aim is to allow USDA to continue contracting out, this amendment is not the way to accomplish that. The language that we have included in the bill does not prevent USDA from carrying out the outsourcing of Federal work. What it simply aims to do is to establish a much-needed oversight on the related costs to contracting out. Regardless of how one feels about the role of the Federal workforce and the outsourcing of Federal jobs to private contractors, why would we object to transparency in this area? We are talking about a report. Now, after the comment about the report being burdensome, this is the report, it is hardly burdensome, four paragraphs and a chart. It really defies the imagination. The fact is that we need to exercise our responsibility. We need to increase oversight in this area. We all know that the administration's guidelines for public-private competitions, OMB circular 876, has long favored contractors and stacked the deck against Federal employees. The Bush White House has pushed privatization so much that the Los Angeles Times reported earlier this month that there are more private contractors in Iraq than U.S. troops. More than 180,000 civilians, including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis, are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense Department figures obtained by the newspaper. I believe we should know the costs associated with contracting-out policies. That is all, again, that is all the language in the report is about, and I cannot understand why the gentleman objects to a report. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise again in strong opposition to this amendment from the gentleman from Texas. This would cut in half the Broadband Community Connect program. This funding level will help. First, let me quote to you from something called the Carsey Institute Report, Rural America and the Twenty-First Century Prospectus from the Field. And this is the quote. This is June, 2007: ``Expanded broadband telecommunication is essential, is essential, if rural areas are to be competitive in a global economy.'' I can't believe the gentleman would want to move us backward and not forward in terms of allowing our communities to move into the 21st century and to be able to compete globally. This funding level helps more families in rural communities get the access that they need to technology. This helps to increase business, employment opportunities, greater access to educational and lifesaving medical services. This is not a partisan issue. We all support providing increased broadband services to rural America. Communities that are selected to receive grant funds do not currently have access to broadband connectivity for central services of police, fire protection, hospitals, local governments, libraries, schools. In return, what the communities do, because it is a partnership, they provide a community center where you have at least 10 computers to be available to the public with hours set for instruction and on the use of the Internet. This is about economic opportunity and revitalization and the potential for improving the quality of life for residents in these areas that need to have this infrastructure. The technology is going to be the key to the ability of rural businesses and rural economies.

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment, which would cut all of the agencies and programs in the bill by 5.5 percent to stay at the 2007 level. This would represent a cut of more than $1 billion from the bill. Now is exactly the wrong time to cut funding for the critical programs under this bill. It is not the way to restore fiscal discipline and balance the budget. Rather than using targeted precision cuts, as we have done with the bill, an across-the-board cut hurts core programs, increases the investment deficits our communities across the country have had to overcome in the past years, regardless of the value of the program. We face investment deficits in fundamental programs, rural and economic development, nutrition, international food assistance, agriculture exports, conservation, food and drug safety. I mentioned in my opening remarks that the fiscal year 2008 mark provides total discretionary resources of $18.8 billion, $1 billion above 2007, $982 million above the budget request. These are modest increases, but critical to provide basic services to rural communities to feed those in need and support conservation efforts. And 95 percent of the increase in this bill is used precisely to restore these programs. If we cut $1 billion from the bill, as the gentleman is proposing, this is what would happen: we would not be able to fund these efforts in rural development. Direct loans for the section 515 Rural Multi- Family Rental Housing Program; section 502 directs single family housing programs; broadband grants, the Community Connect Broadband Program; Empowerment Zone; Enterprise Community Program; Community Facility Grant Program; Rural Business Enterprise and Opportunity Grants Program. We would have to significantly cut funding for water and waste grants, mutual self-help housing grant programs, farm labor housing loans and grants. In conservation, we will eliminate funding for the Watershed Flood Prevention Operation. Watershed surveys and planning. Cut funding for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program, Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, and the Resources Conservation and Development Program. Nutrition. Without $1 billion, we may not be able to restore funding for the Commodities Supplemental Food Program. We may have to cut WIC administrative grants to States. The increases needed and provided in this bill are not based on the belief that we should just throw money at the challenges that we face. The modest increases are about meeting the Federal Government's obligation. I oppose the gentleman's amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. I would just concur that I think what we need to do is to look at core programs. Whether it is at the USDA or at the FDA, the gentleman's amendment would force all of these agencies that cover rural development, and I laid out the programs. Again, if you take a look at the demographics of rural America and their needs, which have to do with water and conservation and transportation and broadband and housing, by the very nature of your amendment, we've cut $1 billion from all those very, very critically important programs that are meeting the needs today of rural America in an effort that they may be able to re-energize and revitalize their communities, put together the kinds of community institutions that will help people in rural America to be able to thrive. They have taken a terrible blow in wages and in globalization. And what you would do with your amendment is just snatch that money from these kinds of efforts. And I will just say this to you: quite honestly, what we've tried to do is, because the administration, and I'm presuming that this is something that you support along with the administration, is to say to rural America, You're on your own. If you don't have it, forget about it, we're not going to be there to help you. Government has a responsibility, a moral responsibility, to engage when people are facing challenges in their lives. I believe everyone in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle would concur on what we are seeing happening in rural America and what is happening to the economic stability of this area and of these communities and of these individuals. It's not statistics; it's people. It's people's lives; it's people's abilities to have health care, to take their kids to school, to be able to afford education and transportation costs. Why would you want to take that away? Why would you want to decimate nutrition programs when 40 percent of children in rural America are dependent upon food stamps? Why would you want to say no to nutrition when one out of eight families with an infant in this Nation is food insecure? Let me tell you what food insecure means. It means they're hungry. They're hungry in the richest country in the world; and that is wrong, which is why your amendment really should be defeated, and it makes no sense. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement By the Acting Chairman

Ms. DeLAURO. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Why? Why would we want to deny American workers, including those involved in rural development, the opportunity to receive fair prevailing wage protection? It's a matter of fairness for working men and women. This is a program that is 75 years old, started by a Republican Congress in a Republican administration. The amendment attempts to undo what the House farm bill passed last week. Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon prevents our workers from being exploited, and it encourages high-quality work. Again, I urge the rejection of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this motion for several reasons, not the least of which is that it derails the bill. There is one word in this motion, ``promptly,'' which, as my colleagues know, takes the bill from the floor without reaching the question of passage. Let me also add a critical point and be very clear: There are no funds in this bill which would authorize any actions for illegal aliens; not for rural housing, not for employment, not for any of the activities funded under this bill. The President today accused the Congress of stalling on appropriations bills, yet that is exactly what you are doing with this motion. You are adding to the delay with a motion that means nothing. As I have said earlier today during debate, this bill is the product of good, bipartisan cooperation and the result of many, many months of hard work; from hearings, to the subcommittee mark and up through the full committee. This bill strengthens rural America, it protects our public health, it improves nutrition in this Nation, it transforms our energy future, it supports conservation, it invests in research and it enhances all of society. We have every reason to move forward on this bill tonight. Let me take the time to say thank you to the chair of the committee, Mr. Obey; yes, to the ranking member, Mr. Lewis; to the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Kingston; to the staff, Martha Foley, Leslie Barrack, Diem-Linh Jones, Adrienne Simonson, Kelly Wade, Brian Ronholm, Ashley Turton, Leticia Mederos; on the Republican side, Martin Delgado, David Gibbons, Jamie Swafford, Merritt Myers, Meg Gilley; and on our side again, Rob Nabors, John Daniel, David Reich, Lesley Turner. They did incredible work to make sure that this bill got passed. Let me just say to you now that I have had a lot of Members who have come up to tell me that they will vote for whichever side stops talking first. So with that, I end my remarks. Defeat this motion to recommit and pass this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiries

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Ms. DeLAURO. I am very interested in working with you, as we have talked about in the past, and will continue to do that as we move forward.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. DeLAURO. I appreciate the concept and recognize its importance and will work with the gentleman on this important issue.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Ms. DeLAURO. I understand the importance of the issue and will work with you in conference to address the funding needs of this eradication effort.

Ms. DeLAURO

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, while I was very supportive of the great work that was done by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Peterson on the farm bill, there is one provision that I have significant concerns about and I will work to ensure that the language is removed from the bill before it is enacted into law. The farm bill contains language that would change the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act that would allow state inspected meat and poultry products to be sold in interstate commerce. Current law limits the sale of state-inspected meat and poultry products to the state in which they were produced. The stated purpose of the provision is to encourage the creation of new small meat and poultry processing businesses and give farmers new markets for their products. Because current law permits state-inspection programs but requires that they be ``equal to'' the federal program, supporters of this provision insist there would be no health risk in permitting state-inspected products to be sold any where. However, do not be misled by the argument--the proposed change in the law would create a serious threat to public health and result in the serious weakening of the federal meat and poultry inspection programs. Instead of creating new markets for farmers, the reduced health standard that this provision would establish ultimately would reduce the market for all meat and poultry products. There are no data to support the belief that federal inspection requirements are too onerous for small companies. In fact, thousands of small and very small meat and poultry plants in every single state operate successfully under the federal inspection process. There are currently 5,603 plants now under federal inspection, and 2,878 of those (51 percent) employ ten or fewer people. In addition, there are approximately 1,654 other plants that have between 10 and 50 employees. While the federal inspection laws require that state inspection programs be equal to the federal program, based on reports by the USDA Office of Inspector General, plants subjected to state inspection may not be as clean and sanitary as federally inspected plants. In October 2006, the USDA Office of Inspector General published an audit of FSIS's oversight of state meat and poultry inspection programs that outlined how state inspection programs failed to meet sanitation standards. The report also found that FSIS was failing to hold states responsible for protecting public health by allowing meat plants in four states to continue to sell meat even after finding that the state programs were not meeting legal safety standards. Although meat and poultry inspection laws require that state programs be equal to the federal program, USDA focuses its reviews of equivalence on state plans. So, while it is possible to have adequate inspection plans on paper, the USDA does not certify that each state inspected plant meets federal standards. The agency also does not return to these plants to determine that they are continuing to meet federal standards. Mr. Chairman, you will be disturbed to learn that the USDA conducts a far more rigorous oversight of foreign plants that want to export meat to the U.S. than it does over state inspected plants. Before a plant in a foreign country can ship meat to the U.S., USDA must first determine that the foreign country's inspection program is ``equal to'' the U.S. program. Then, USDA must examine and certify as acceptable each individual plant that wants to ship meat or poultry to the U.S. There is no comparable requirement for state-inspected plants to be initially certified. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, rejected the state of Ohio's contention that the prohibition on interstate sale of state- inspected meat violated the Fifth and Tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The court explained that the difference between federal, international and state inspection programs justified the limitations on the shipment of state inspected meat. They found that ``though the U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an eye on state inspection programs, it keeps yet a closer eye on its own plants and on meat and poultry entering the country, and it is possible that a state program could deteriorate without the USDA's knowledge. This possibility provides a rational basis for Congress to restrict the interstate transport of state-inspected meat.'' Another important component of this issue to consider is that it would be extremely difficult for a state government to manage an effective recall of adulterated meat or poultry that has been shipped outside the state. The USDA and state governments do not possess mandatory recall authority, and recalls must be negotiated between the regulatory agency and the company. While a state meat inspection agency may direct a state-inspected plant to undertake a recall, a state inspection program does not have the legal authority to travel to other states to assure a recall of meat and poultry products has been executed thoroughly. The proposed language in the farm bill would have the unintended consequence of opening the door for a major exodus of meat and poultry plants from federal inspection to state inspection programs. The language would allow 80 percent of all federally inspected plants to be eligible to transfer from federal inspection to state inspection if the plant is in one of the 28 states that have an inspection program. This means that a federally inspected plant that is under pressure from a federal inspector to improve its sanitation practices could decide to transfer to the state inspection that might offer less stringent oversight. Mr. Chairman, as you can see, this is a very critical food safety issue that needs to be addressed. A Democratic Congress cannot be responsible for jeopardizing our food supply and we must work to ensure that this provision is not enacted into law. Last week, the Safe Food Coalition sent a letter that outlined the concerns on this issue in greater detail. I ask that the letter be included in the Record. July 25, 2007. Dear Representative: The undersigned members of the Safe Food Coalition and the American Federation of Government Employees strongly oppose the state-inspected meat and poultry provisions in the ``Farm Bill,'' H.R. 2419. These provisions would lower food safety standards and increase the risk of food poisoning in the U.S. They would encourage the least responsible and competent meat and poultry federally inspected processors to escape the rigorous safety enforcement of federal inspectors and search for more ``understanding'' and ``flexible'' enforcement by state inspectors. The provisions amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to permit meat and poultry products inspected by state inspectors to be sold in interstate commerce. The goal, according to supporters, is to ``create new markets for state-inspected meat'' which they say would encourage the start-up of new, small meat and poultry processing companies that would compete with giant international slaughter and processing companies and offer farmers better prices. We agree that both farmers and consumers might benefit from increased competition in meat and poultry processing, but we reject the assumption that new companies and competition must be encouraged by dismantling the federal inspection system, reducing food safety standards, and raising the risk of foodborne illness. These provisions do not permit states to establish higher food safety standards. Federal meat and poultry laws pre-empt the states from raising standards. USDA's Inspector General reports that the Department has not closed state programs that fail to provide safety protection ``equal to'' federal standards. The provisions affect federal, as well as state, inspected meat and poultry plants. They would make 80 percent of all federally inspected meat and poultry processing plants--4,532 of 5,603 plants--eligible to switch from federal inspection to the more ``business-friendly'' state inspection. With that change, if a federal inspector pressures a meat packer to improve sanitation, the packer could instead try to negotiate a more understanding regulatory response from his state inspection program. It is not surprising that both the American Meat Institute and the National Meat Association, whose members are federally inspected plants, have signed off on this language despite the authors' claims that it creates new competition for them. A major exodus from federal to state inspection programs would not only threaten food safety but would also adversely affect thousands of federal inspection employees, contributing to a loss of federal inspection positions. Their loss would hurt American consumers who have benefited from the work of well-trained federal inspectors, all sworn to protect the public's health, who have, for over 40 years, been an important part of the nation's public health protection structure. The provisions would also unleash lobbying campaigns to set up state inspection programs in the 22 states that currently do not have them so plants in those states can also seek ``more understanding'' enforcement of food safety laws under state programs. Thousands of very small plants thrive under federal inspection. Fifty-one percent of all federally inspected plants (2,878 of 5,603) have 10 or fewer employees and 80 percent have 50 or fewer employees. These federally inspected small operations comply with federal inspection and make a profit. We do not support providing an unfair advantage to small companies who don't or can't make the commitments necessary to comply with federal food safety requirements. The USDA Office of Inspector General reports that plants subject to state inspection may not be as clean and sanitary as federally inspected plants. In 1994 the IG said, ``state programs are weak in policing plant sanitation and the federal government is weak in following up to make sure deficiencies in the state inspection system are fixed.'' In October 2006, the OIG released an audit of state inspection that included stomach turning examples of state inspection programs failing to meet basic sanitation requirements and of FSIS failing to hold states responsible for protecting public health. The OIG reported that FSIS visited 11 meat plants in Mississippi in October 2003. None of the plants met all HACCP requirements. FSIS reported that cutting boards in one plant were heavily contaminated with meat residues from the previous day's work and noted that some plants failed to monitor cooking temperatures, potentially exposing consumers to bacteria that cause foodborne illness. The Mississippi meat inspection program allowed the plants to continue operating. FSIS allowed the Mississippi program to keep operating though it was not meeting the ``equal to'' federal inspection legal requirements. FSIS allowed meat plants in four states--Missouri, Wisconsin, Delaware and Minnesota to continue to operate, selling meat to unsuspecting consumers, even after finding that the state programs were not meeting legal standards for ``equal to.'' Under current law, the risk from lax state meat and poultry inspection programs is limited because the products cannot leave the state in which they were produced. If Congress approves these provisions the problems would become nationwide as the products travel across the country. The USDA does not certify that each state inspected plant meets federal standards before coming into the program, nor does it go back to check to determine that the plants continue to meet federal standards. FSIS officials determine ``equal to'' status primarily by looking at paper, not plants. They examine state plans. They almost never actually go into a state-inspected plant to see what is really happening. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit explains why Congress is justified in limiting the shipment of state- inspected meat to the state in which it is produced: ``. . . though the U.S. Department of Agriculture keeps an eye on state inspection programs, it keeps yet a closer eye on its own plants and on meat and poultry entering the country, and it is possible that a state program could deteriorate without the USDA's knowledge. This possibility provides a rational basis for Congress to restrict the interstate transport of state-inspected meat.'' There is no effective way for state governments to assure recall of state inspected adulterated meat or poultry that has been shipped away from the state where it was produced. These provisions, therefore, will increase the risk of serious foodborne illness. Neither USDA nor state governments has mandatory recall authority. Recalls are negotiated between the regulatory agency and the company. The USDA, however, has the staff and capacity both to negotiate with a company about the size and timing of a recall and to go to all the places where the product may have been distributed to be sure the recalled products are being removed. No individual state agriculture department has the authority or the capacity to institute and manage the recall of adulterated meat or poultry from another state. The provisions were approved by the House Agriculture Committee without the benefit of public hearings to explore the crucial issues or give opponents an opportunity to be heard. The provisions were drafted by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture whose members want to expand their programs. Meat packing trade associations, whose members may welcome the leverage of threatening to switch to state inspection, signed off on the provisions. Consumer and public health experts, as well as the unions who represent federal inspectors and workers in meatpacking plants, had no opportunity to address the issues. The provisions assure that the details of implementation would also avoid transparency and exclude public participation. The provisions direct the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate rules for the major new program within 180 days after the bill becomes law, effectively foreclosing any meaningful opportunity for notice and comment rulemaking, open meetings and public discussion. One of the provisions creates an advisory committee limited to officials of state inspection programs, excluding public health experts and representatives of consumers who might challenge whether public health is being given first consideration. Neither the House of Representatives nor the American people are well served by the substance of these provisions or the process that produced them. We believe that approval of the Farm Bill language allowing state inspected meat and poultry products to be sold in interstate commerce would mark the beginning of the end of the nation's strong, uniform federal meat and poultry inspection system and would seriously undermine the public health protection federal inspection has built over the past 40 years. Sincerely, Carol Tucker Foreman, Founder, Safe Food Coalition; Patricia Buck, Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention; Chris Waldrop, Consumer Federation of America; Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch; Jacqueline Ostfeld, Government Accountability Project; Linda Golodner, National Consumers League; Nancy Donley; Safe Tables-Our Priority; Michael J. Wilson, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union; American Federation of Government Employees.